Talk:Characters in Redemption
Category List Compared to the category list, this page is really insufficient to get users to all the information available. I've duplicated the contents of this page to the category page, where it seems a more appropriate introduction. I think this article needs a re-write. -- Tiktaalik 14:49, April 26, 2010 (UTC) Yup, it's too small. Not me though, hands are very shaky (probably an overdose of energy drinks, doesn't happen that often luckily) and typing this is hard enough :P ---- TeslaRaptor | User | Talk | 15:41, April 26, 2010 (UTC) Spoiler Warning Should this page be given a marked with a spoiler warning, as it reveals that Jack Marston becomes the protagonist at the end of the game?Westbrookorama 23:35, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Vandalism The page was vandalised with a picture of some cats fighting, and someone erased all the text. I know I'm not a registered member, but it felt very wrong in such a complete and responsible wiki as this. I erased the code and the picture, but I don't have a saved version of the page, but I guess an empty page is better than some nonsensical drivel. If I overstepped, I am sorry. Character pages are all Whitefang's baby now. I wash my hands of them. Cheers! - JackFrost23 17:55, September 11, 2010 (UTC) Edgar Ross I just thougt that maybe he should be a Central Character, or am i wrong? What are the demands to be a central character? Hevehoc 12:13, October 16, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Hevehoc, Ross should really be a central character, because without him, the whole story never would've even started. Also, I think Jack should be a central character as well, because the epilogue couldn't happen without him, and that's still part of the Red Dead Redemption story.--With care and happiness, [[User: Supermutantslayer450|''' Supermutantslayer450'' ]] YOU. LOSE. 17:51, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :Nope, sorry, gentlemen, but you're both wrong. :If Dutch's Gang had never existed, we would've never had a story and no reason to ever meet Edgar Ross. :Therefore Edgar Ross is a Major character - especially because he's a mission-giver. :I understand that Ross is a very popular character, but let's try and keep perspective. :I recommend reading the descriptions I put in for each of the character classes at the top of the Characters page. These will help understand how we divided up the classes. :Cheers! : - JackFrost23 20:07, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :P.S. - Please do not change Ross to a central character - I will change it back. And Jack is not a central character at all since he comes in pretty late into a story that's already happening/happened. Ok, I read the descriptions, and I don't want to argue; don't get that feeling with me at all. But, it says "These are characters without whom the story would not even occur. They transcend any particular section of the story because they have a larger overall importance due to their actions ''before the story begins." Without Ross, what you actually play in the game wouldn't happen, and he has a huge role before the game starts. I'm not going to change it, and I accept your decision, but can you explain why, exactly? The description for central characters matches Ross pretty well...--With care and happiness, [[User: Supermutantslayer450|''' Supermutantslayer450'' ]] YOU. LOSE. 18:56, December 2, 2010 (UTC) :Hey, no worries, I wasn't trying to argue either. :) I'm just trying to keep some kind of unity to the articles and I've worked very extensively on the character pages individually and this collective one as well. So if I seem a little defensive, that'd be why. ;) :And I mentioned why Ross wasn't a Central character in my first response: ::"If Dutch's Gang had never existed, we would've never had a story and no reason to ever meet Edgar Ross."'' ::"Therefore Edgar Ross is a Major character - especially because he's a mission-giver." :Ross may be the instigator of the story we see in the game, but there is still a story that occurred before the game started that Ross had no part in. Ross is certainly a top tier character (which we labeled 'Major') in the story presented within the game, but the story of Dutch's gang precedes, and is a direct catalyst of, the game story. Does that make sense? :Now if Ross were somehow behind Dutch getting his gang to together in the first place, which I doubt, then he'd be a Central Character because he was instrumental in the crimes Dutch's gang committed that would inevitably put them on his own radar. In essence, he'd be cleaning up his own mess - but I haven't seen that even floated as a rumor, much less is it ever hinted at in the story. :Let me know if I'm making sense or not because I'm hoping this will be left this way because it makes sense and not because I'm enforcing it as an admin (because that would be lame). :Cheers! :- JackFrost23 20:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC) Nope, I understand. I thought that these where character's importance actually in the game, not exactly including the character's that took place before the game. So, I thought we were talking about the story in Red Dead Redemption, not before the game. So, the story in Redemption would have Ross as central, but the story as a whole, starting with John in Dutch's gang, Ross is not. And now that I look, I see why Jack isn't central, since he doesn't have a huge role before the game starts. So, anyway, thanks for clearing that up. I'll make sure to revert any edits that put Ross in central.--With care and happiness, [[User: Supermutantslayer450|''' Supermutantslayer450'' ]] YOU. LOSE. 20:37, December 2, 2010 (UTC) Classification Dissent Can't say that I agree at all with the "Central Character" classification. Javier Escuella is a central character? Not in any accepted sense of dramatic writing he's not; nor are Bill or Dutch. For me there is only one central character, and that's John Marston. If the definition of "central character" is essentially "without Dutch's gang no story would exist", why isn't Abby on the list? She was a gang member, and provides at least 50% of Marston's motivation in pursuing the story at all. His son, of course, provides the rest - they are the levers that make the whole thing work. :Abby is not in the same classification as the rest of the gang for one simple fact - if she were as instrumental in the gang's actions as the other 4, Ross would never had let her survive. And all the shots R* has made so far of Dutch's gang only have the 4 Central Characters in them. Plus, she's a mission-giver, which, if you look, are the only characters in the Major character tier. :Jack is an epilogue. :I think what might be a problem is that you're focusing too narrowly on the story presented in the game, while I've taken into account what occurred ''before the game started to make the classifications. It was also a way of giving the mission-givers their own tier as they are neither Supporting nor Minor characters. A Major character is someone who gives you a story mission, which is why Dutch and Javier and Bill don't fit into that category. And I don't want them to be Supporting or Minor characters because, unlike characters like Jonah and Eli, their importance to the overall story is outweighed by their screen time. :At any rate, before I created the tiers, added characters would get tossed into whatever class the author was keen on at the time, and the established characters got moved around based on an editors preference for seeing the character in a higher tier and not really on ANY kind of logic. Personally, I got fed up with that and instated a tiered system that had some kind of definition. I'm not trying to say that my set-up is unassailable, but it's certainly better than what we had before. I don't believe the classification at the moment provides an accurate picture of the characterisation, or any proper sense of what to expect from the current batch of "central characters". I find the classification somewhat arbitrary, and I'd vote to have one central character - John Marston - with Dutch and Williamson rebadged as Major and Escuella possibly demoted as far as Minor. He barely has a speaking role! :Hell, Uncle should be a Minor character then. He's only got a few lines/scenes, gives you 2 missions that are largely a result of his being negligent and generally is not very helpful besides. But he will remain a Major character nonetheless. It's interesting that no one's complained about that classification. :D :And again, you're only focusing on the story contained within the game. If you expand your viewpoint to include the wider story you might be able to see how I arrived at those 4 Central characters: if these 4 had never been an infamous gang, Ross would not need to compel Marston to eliminate them, and we'd have no Red Dead Redemption. :Does that make sense? My two penn'orth WileCoyote 20:41, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :- JackFrost23 21:31, March 8, 2011 (UTC) : :Hi JF: I understand your reasoning entirely, I just don't agree with it. I will argue as long as you like that the classification is arbitrary, based on the identification of one particular event at are certain pre-game time provide a definition. Why choose that particular event and time around which to draw a boundary? If we choose a timeframe closer to the start of the game, we would naturally hook in Ross, Abby, Jack. If we choose one farther back, then John's mother and father become "central characters" - without them, etc, etc. That's what I mean by arbitrary. To me it makes far more sense to draw our definitions from the events and time frame of the game itself, not some point in the past. Sure, that means I'm focused on the story contained in the game, but I would argue that so would most vistitors here be. ::Look, it's not like I pulled Dutch's Gang out of my arse... :D I'm a little baffled at why you'd downplay it, but I chose that 'event' because it's a hugely important piece of the rest of the story and the game. Numerous sources describe the gang and its existence, so this is not out of left field. Going back to Marston's parents would indeed be arbitrary as there is no guarantee that John will become an outlaw simply by being born (and I think on this point you're being a little spurious for the sake of maintaining your argument). Not so with his turn in Dutch's gang (and I'll remind you he quit not too long before the game-story begins) which, as I've mentioned several times, is the catalyst for the rest of the tale. ::If John Marston had never been in Dutch's Gang, he would not be a central character in the game, nor would he have the skills to survive Ross' task even if he were. This is not an arbitrary notion, this is a fact. :Certainly, "mission giving" characters should all be classed as Major - that makes perfect sense. For all his comparatively small role, Uncle should be Major - he's a mission giver. My only real beef is with the three outlaws as "central characters". If we regard the game as an interactive movie (which it is, and a darn good one too!) then I argue we should take our classifications from that perspective: central (one, John); major (mission givers all); supporting (Bill, Dutch, significant other players who aren't mission givers); and minor (Escuella, other bit-parts). :But life is too short :-). ::But I said before that I didn't want Dutch's Gang relegated to the lower tiers because they lack screen time. Just because they don't have a ton of dialogue and appear infrequently does not put them at the same low level of importance as Eli or Jonah or any of the Strangers. These are the main antagonists of the game and the whole reason Marston has had his family kidnapped and so they deserve their own tier, again despite their screen time. The only one I was even remotely iffy on was Escuella, but then I realized that he provides Williamson's fallback position into Mexico when Fort Mercer goes pear-shaped which forces Marston to go South of the Border (a pretty significant event, wouldn't you say?). And all of this is still within the confines of the game-story, even if it is not explicitly depicted. ::That brings me to Uncle, which you want to exempt from some of the criteria you want to apply to the others because you think makes them deserve a lower tier. This is exactly why I created the tiers in the first place because of this kind of thing (not that I'm getting on your case for it, just using this as an example ;)). Until I made Uncle a Major character he was considered a Supporting character because he doesn't have that much screen time. ::Basically, I tried to find a way to add a little organization to the characters since before the page was literally a long list of names with no designations whatsoever, and, as such, was not a very helpful reference tool. ::Believe it or not, I really did think this through before making the changes. ;) ::I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the game also being an interactive movie because whenever I try to tell people that RDR was one of my favorite movies last year the give me a look resembling that of a dog that's been shown a card trick. :Cheers WileCoyote 13:56, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::- JackFrost23 18:25, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Undead Nightmare Why are all the Undead Nightmare characters minors? :Undead Nightmare is only an add-on. Plus, none of the characters added play that large of a role, save maybe Nigel. Seth and Landon play equally minor roles So they should only be considered supporting, a best. And that Ayauhtéotl only appears in cutscenes except when she gives that one mission. There really aren't any major characters, so there's really no need to distinguish them differently. Sláinte mhaith! - Hobbes (Talk) 19:39, April 10, 2011 (UTC) allende allende was put in major characters even though he is not a mission giver he should be in supporting characters